I Just Got Back from Colombia..

[SobreTodo]

Originally Posted by UrbanLuis

I don't think you can really say Mexico is more brutal. I have read and heard horror stories from Colombia. Colombia had to deal with both the drug trade and an armed insurgency, things got pretty messy.

Chiapas is really not that bad compared to other areas. The ezln isn't making much noise these days and they never really did cause any major violence. I've been there to visit some archaeological sites, its a really nice place. I would love to go back and spend more time there.

True although it depends and varies by region. Certain regions seem or are safer than others within each nation.

Either way you still gotta be very careful and aware of your surroundings.

[rosa surf]

Originally Posted by EricOldTime

No, but the northern border regions of Mexico certainly is.....it's REALLY bad up there...

Even so, I've heard of alot of instances of insecurity in Mexico....it still has a long way to go....

I'm in northern Mexico all the time, it is a huge expanse of land. I spend many weekends in 'Northern Mexico' going to art shows, movies, and hanging out at my family home. I actually come here for peace and vacation time, away from the U.S.

This weekend I will be going to wine country(Valle de Guadalupe), which I go to often and is actually a very safe, rustic valley with wineries, pizzerias, and very good restaurants.

Mexico definitely has safety issues, but we need to also remember that it is a huge country with varying places, just like all Latin American countries.

[joacocanal]

Originally Posted by Sugah Ray

Medellin used to have a lot colonial architecture but unfortunately many buildings were torn down and modern buildings were built. Medellin's architectural history is very tragic and depressing. Maybe it's also the story of many Latin American cities.

Not sure about that. Medellin was populated mostly in the past 200 years. During colonial times it was probably a little, not so important town. Even Santa Fe de Antioquia had more importance.

But yes, for one, under the construction of the metro, a lot of buildings in the center were destroyed.

[Sugah Ray]

Originally Posted by joacocanal

Not sure about that. Medellin was populated mostly in the past 200 years. During colonial times it was probably a little, not so important town. Even Santa Fe de Antioquia had more importance.

But yes, for one, under the construction of the metro, a lot of buildings in the center were destroyed.

Colonial was not the right word, maybe Classical(Baroque?). Architecture is not my forte, but there were many buildings that were demolished in the 60's and 70's. Not so much during the building of the metro, that took place in the early 90's. They knew better by then.

This is one of the many structures that were demolished and replaced with mordern buidlings, in this case "el Edificio Coltejer"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5O5PP8R5XQ